#!!! if bad books (according to me) are as popular as good ones if not more. what's the point!!!!!!!

[fitzrove]

WHAT'S THE POINT

#!!! if bad books (according to me) are as popular as good ones if not more. what's the point!!!!!!! #this extends to fic too. some of my worst tropey fics that i churned out in 2 minutes became really popular while stuff i felt passionate #about went ignored kdkfld (this is largely abt old fic btw not elisabeth stuff. i know you guys like your [redacted]) #whats the point of working hard to make something good if people are just as happy and fulfilled with bad stuff as long as it exists #🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲 #there is no point haha i mean personal fulfillment? i guess but its not that fulfilling to not have the chance to show ppl your work #sorry i promise i dont have a martyr complex 💀 and in the grand scheme of things its not like im some creative genius #the thing is. i work hard on stuff because i think not giving my best for personal projects done for personal fulfillment is wasting time #but then the disproportionate amount of effort vs online attention really stings. they dont often correlate #there is no point haha. i'm not good at being happy or content and i'm neurotic about the things that make me happier to do #rant #'have you considered taking antidepr*ssants' yes but my other mental illness says no to them. their tongues are battling for dominance

[baejax-the-great]

Absolutely reeling.

So I knew that the origin of "Hector was a great man, moral, noble, better than all of the Greeks" began as Roman propaganda that somehow has made it to now, the year 2023, and is still taught to high school students.

What I did not know was why scholars shit on Achilles as vehemently as they did (and still do).

My copy of Fagles' translation of the Iliad has a preface by a different scholar who I'm not going to bother to name because he's an idiot (and idk probably dead at this point). I read the entire thing, absolutely baffled, because he would cite a part of the text (that I admittedly had not read yet! at all!), quote it, and then come to the most batshit interpretation based on that quote I had ever seen in my life. His general take was that Achilles was a sociopath who had no feelings for anyone other than himself and his own pride, and every action he took (until welcoming Priam into his hut) was done in service of that pride. To support this, he decided that Achilles did not see Patroclus as a person, but rather as an extension of himself, and thus someone injuring Patroclus was them injuring Achilles, and so he did not care about Patroclus, he only cared about his wounded pride.

Yeah.

That sounded wrong before reading the book, and while reading the book all i could think was, "Did we read the same fucking thing???" Put in context, those quotations still did not support his conclusions whatsoever.

But i cracked open Caroline Alexander's "The War That Killed Achilles" last night, and she solves this mystery of "Hector good, Achilles bad" for me right out the gate (which is good because so far I've only read the preface).

Western Europeans by and large learned about the Trojan war from Roman stories, which became fairly popular, and not the Iliad, which was not translated into French or English until centuries later. As mentioned, these were propaganda that cast the Trojans in a much better light than the Greeks because the Romans believed they were descended from Trojan refugees. This starts a trend that is still going on in scholarly circles as casting the Iliad as a war between "barbaric Greeks living in a shitty, lawless camp" vs "civilized, educated, weaving, real-wife-having Trojans," making the Iliad a tragedy in which Homer for some reason skewers his own people and their warlike culture as barbaric while propping up a dead, foreign city-state. This interpretation is still extant and was the postscript to another copy of the Iliad I have.

According to Alexander, scholars closer to Homer's time saw the entire war as a tragedy--both the destruction of Troy AND the destruction of the Greek army. While this is not covered in the Iliad, very few Greeks actually made it home after Troy. Some that did were then outcast (Teucer for example), some were murdered (bye, Agamemnon), some went on to create new kingdoms in other places (Diomedes), but by and large, there was no going home from that war. There was no great victory with all their loot. The entire thing was a disaster for both sides, spurred on by fickle gods.

Back to the more recent European interpretations of this story, one reason Hector ended up cast in such a "good" light, despite being a dumbass who wants to dishonor dead people just as badly as Achilles ever did, was in order to make Achilles look worse. Why was it important that Achilles becomes a villain in this story in which he is very much not a villain? Because Europeans were involved in so much war with each other and the rest of the world that a young, insubordinate man who criticizes his idiot of a commander, decides his life isn't worth throwing away for this war, and refuses to fight to sack a city was an affront to their values. Young men were to be obedient, follow their commanding officers, and colonize the world for queen and country. Achilles suggesting losing his life is not worth it to prop up Agamemnon's war is a dangerous precedent for all the good little soldiers needed to make their nations wealthy.

It's almost funny that these analyses propping up Troy as a beacon of civilization were made by people living in countries so bent on colonizing the world. They identified with the city being sacked and not the greedy sackers of said city, who they were much closer to. And Achilles, educated, morally rigid, emotional Achilles, is recast as a sociopathic asshole who doesn't care about anyone other than himself, unlike all of those other beacons of selflessness among the Greek leadership.

The tragedy of the Iliad is that Achilles is right, the war is pointless, Agamemnon did dishonor the shit out of him, and it doesn't matter because he's going to die in it anyway.

Frankly, given how badly his character has been interpreted for so long, I think the muses owe him an apology.

#the iliad #achilles #I have only read the preface of this book #hope yall like essays #writing essays at 6am and hoping they are grammatical #haven't even had my coffee yet my head is too full of achilles #also a hefty chunk of it was FRENCH propaganda like come ON

[freddiemercurylegendabovelegends]

Today - March 12th, 1974 - Queen Story!

Interview with Freddie Mercury – NME

by Julie Webb

It was clear for all to see that Queen’s Freddie Mercury wasn’t in the best of health. His hair lacked the recent attention of heated curling tongs; a cold sore was erupting above his upper lip; and horror – seems he’d not been able to summon enough strength to apply Biba black nail polish to more than one hand.

Mercury was worried as the camera lens zoomed in on him. He beseeched us to “touch up the picture to remove the cold sore if you can.”

I know it sounds like we’re setting the guy up, but he takes it all in good heart. Why, last time we met he stated he was “gay as a daffodil” – and here he was, willingly holding a daffodil in hand, outside Buckingham Palace. He posed regally, shirt temporarily coming unhitched from his trousers, revealing a hairy chest.

The British tour sapped most of the Mercury energy. Bedridden with laryngitis when it finished, he had just a few free days to repair any mental or physical damage before Queen joined Mott The Hoople on their two-month tour of America.

He is, in short pretty knackered – and if the American tour seems to be happening too soon after Britain, there’s no way he can change things.

I’d like a couple of weeks off, but you’ve got to push yourself. But we’re at a stage in our careers, my dear, where it’s just got to be done. I shall be resting on my laurels soon…”

He stops, considers the last remark and realises he may have said the wrong thing. Hurriedly he comes in with, “To put it another way, I shall try and reap my profits. I’ve worked my ass off these past few months. I’ve worked till I’ve dropped and after a while you physically can’t do it.”

Didn’t he think the British tour was a bit too busy, what with so many gigs included. “Yes it was a heavy tour, but it put us in a different bracket overnight. It’s a tour we had to do and I think now we’ve done it we can do the next British tour on our own terms, exactly how we like.

“With this tour we were booked in well beforehand at semi-big venues and, by the time we came to doing them, we had the album out, we’d got a bit of TV exposure and everything escalated. I think if we’d waited we could have done all the big venues – it’s just a matter of timing. But I’m glad we did the tour when we did. Even though there was a lot of physical and mental strain – so many things to worry about other than the music.”

A situation not improved by the fact that all members of Queen are, according to Mercury, “very highly strung”. Add to that his admitted bad temper. “I’m very emotional. Whereas before, I was given time to make my decisions, now nearly all of us are so highly strung we just snap. We always argue but I think it’s a healthy sign because we get to the root of the matter and squeeze the best out. But lately so much is happening, it’s escalating so fast that everybody wants to know almost instantly, and I certainly get very temperamental.”

“You’ve got to know where to draw the line. But the public always come first – it’s a corny thing to say but I mean it. Lately I’ve been throwing things around which is very unlike me. I threw a glass at someone the other day. I think I’m going to go mad in a few years time; I’m going to be one of those insane musicians.”

It’s at this point that I begin to wonder about Mercury. On stage he lords it around like some old slag. Offstage, he’s vain, camp – yet a nice enough dude.

He just has an unfortunate way with him during interviews, coming out with quotes and stories that are bound to be misconstrued or lay him wide open to mickey-taking. This could well account for some of the unkind press the band have received.

“I think, to an extent, we are a sitting target because we gained popularity quicker than most bands and we’ve been talked about more than any other band in the last month, so it’s inevitable. Briefly, I’d be the first one to accept fair criticism. I think it would be wrong if all we got were good reviews – but it’s when you get unfair, dishonest reviews where people haven’t done their homework that I get annoyed.” Unlike many British bands, they’ve waited until the time was right and are appearing on the same bill as Mott, who will assuredly pull in large crowds.

So the present and the future seem well assured I enquire about the past – like, what kind of family background does a guy like Mercury have?

“Middle-class. Musicians aren’t social rejects any more. If you mean; Have I got upper class parents who put a lot of money into me? Was I spoilt? – no. My parents were very strict. I wasn’t the only one, I’ve got a sister, I was at boarding school for nine years so I didn’t see my parents that often. That background helped me a lot because it taught me to fend for myself.”

Boarding school… if we are to believe stories that circulate about boarding schools – brutish behaviour, homosexual goings-on – well, the mind positively boggles in Freddie Mercury’s case.

I broach the subject…

“it’s stupid to say there is no such thing in boarding schools. All the things they say about them are more or less true. All the bullying and everything else. I’ve had the odd schoolmaster chasing me. It didn’t shock me because somehow boarding schools… you’re not confronted by it, you are just slowly aware of it. It’s going through life.”

So was he the pretty boy who everyone wanted to lay?

“Funnily enough, yes. Anybody goes through that. I was considered the arch poof.”

So how about being bent?

“You’re a crafty cow. Let’s put it this way, there were times when I was young and green. It’s a thing schoolboys go through. I’ve had my share of schoolboy pranks. I’m not going to elaborate further.”

Oh dear. And just when we were doing so well.

📸 Pic: 1974 - Freddie Mercury posing

#nme magazine #freddie mercury interview 1974 #1974 #interview #julie webb #freddie mercury #queen band #london #zanzibar #legend #queen #brian may #john deacon #freddiebulsara #roger taylor

[sofoulandfairaday]

Do you have any Peter hcs? There's not a lot of content with him so I wondered if you had.

Sorry for the late reply anon(s).

Truth be told... not many. I think Peter is a fascinating character but not one I spend a lot of time thinking about beyond his role in the canon, ergo it's hard for me to have headcanons about him. This is more of a meta post really, or at least a mix of meta & headcanons & general thoughts.

He always had a mean streak. I hate when he's portrayed in the fandom as someone who was super jolly good, a lovable bumbling idiot, or worse a clueless innocent little guy whom Voldemort just happened to bamboozle, or even worse a suave, smooth-talking ladies' man with even one (1) ounce of charisma. Much like Remus, he always feared his position inside their group, unlike Remus he really was the lowest in the pecking order. As such, he would always look for someone weaker than him to make up for it. This is very clear in SWM when he's described as laughing (roaring with laughter) and looking on with a look of avid anticipation and hungrily at Snape's humiliation and sexual harassment by his two popular friends.

He isn't academically brilliant, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. He was called dumb his whole life, by friends and foes alike... There is literally not a single character in the whole book series who doesn't talk to him condescendingly: Voldemort openly mocks him and shows him even less respect than he does to his fellow Death Eaters, Snape treats him like a servant, his own best friends call him dumb:

"How thick are you, Wormtail?" said James impatiently. "You run round with a werewolf once a month-" and "Put that away, will you?" said Sirius [...] "Before Wormtail wets himself from excitement". Wormtail turned slightly pink but James grinned.

And yet, he (1) does manage to become an Animagus, even though we can mostly ascribe this to James and Sirius' help; (2) blows up a street, killing twelve Muggles and framing Sirius for murder; (3) helps revive Voldemort at his weakest - which, I mean, Voldemort was definitely giving the orders and detailing how to make the potion etc, but this is an unusual level of competence, seeing what the standard for the Death Eaters in the second wizarding war is (DoM anyone? Twelve of Voldemort's best Death Eaters vs six Hogwarts fifth years? Pathetic display if you ask me)

Was definitely a bit of an errand boy for Sirius and James.

His best subject was Charms (12 Muggles, you guys) and his worst was Potions. My funny little headcanon is that he was so bad at it that Voldemort had a bad time trying to guide him in brewing that Rebirth Potion - the actual reason it took them a whole year.

Asked the Sorting Hat to be placed in Gryffindor. Peter Pettigrew is canonically a Hatstall between Gryffindor and Slytherin (source). My headcanon is that he asked the Sorting Hat to be placed in Gryffindor. Perhaps it was because the kind boy he had met on the train (Remus Lupin) had already been sorted into Gryffindor before him, or maybe it was because he was always attracted to greatness and Gryffindor is the House of valor after all.

He wasn't forced by Voldemort to give up the Potters' location or become a Death Eater. He went of his own accord. He started feeding Voldemort information a whole year before the Potters' death and he did so because Voldemort was winning the war. He had all but won. In my headcanons, 1979-1980 is his we are on the edge of a golden world moment. It all goes downhill from there. Peter was probably one of those people who fell inside Voldemort's web of charisma/intimidation. He was in equal parts scared and morbidly attracted, just like everyone else on that side.

I like the headcanon that Peter did most of the sketching on the Marauder's Map. It goes along well with my headcanon that he's a talented drawer and he made some mean caricatures of most students and faculty during his time at Hogwarts.

#asks #answered #hp headcanons #marauder's era #peter pettigrew #wormtail

[spongebob-connoisseur]

@bluebellthesponge

Hmm I dunno tbh. I guess he's just easy to caricature. Bug eyes, crooked teeth, short stature, creepy voice. Even describing it probably puts a handful of characters in your mind.

According to the book The Animated Peter Lorre, there's at least 700+ lorre caricatures/impressions in cartoons. Tho he does include igor-type characters and impressions of an impressions but still, that's A LOT. Too bad the author doesn't give an explaination as to WHY Lorre is so parodied.

I know Looney tunes parodied Lorre because he was one of the popular stars of the day, Looney tunes parodies a lot of famous stars from the 40s so it's not really surprising. I also know in the 90s Looney tunes reboots you have a lot of lorre caricatures because the animators were fans of his movies.

I've heard a story about how Lorre stuck up for the animation union at Warner Brothers and got fired for it and that's why he is caricatured so often as a way to honor him. I kinda doubt the story is true because I can't find a source (and Lorre was more likely fired for beefing with Jack Warner) but if the story is true then it's super wholesome.

Something that is official is Charles Addams (the creator of the Addams Family) telling Lorre that he based Gomez Addams off of him. I know people hate on the 2019 Addams family movies for making Gomez ugly but it's comic accurate because he was based off of Lorre (and the governor of new york in the 30s but that's not important)

I've also heard Lorre parodies are possibly an antisemetic caricature because Peter Lorre was Jewish (his birthname is Laszlo Löwenstein and you can guess why he avoided using it) and let's be real, they often give him very unflattering portrayals. He barely played horror yet is the most affiliated with it, and his "creepier" roles sometimes hinged on the fact that he's a foreigner. It's not a good look. I get that he often avoided telling others he's Jewish and apparently a lot of people didn't know but there's still a weird layer of xenophobia to it that I kinds feel like kinda bleeds into some of the caricatures? That's just my opinion. Most Peter parodies are such copies of a copy that they're pretty far from the original source material. Still, it's food for thought. Especially when making your own Peter parody.

As far as I do know Lorre did like the caricatures, keeping some of the drawings fans sent him and even finding it amusing when others tell him how to do an impression of HIMSELF. Some of those saved fan drawings are still online. My favorite is the drawing of him as a turtle <3 Most of the caricatures was because he was pretty famous for the time.

The most amusing thing about peter parodies is that it's gone on so long that nobody really knows who lorre is, but they can identify his "image" in cartoons. Tim Burton didn't even know Lorre's name when he added Maggot in corpse bride, but he did know the voice and look. That's how it is. (Check out this maggot pin I got recently)

I know for Slappy, Kaz is actually a fan of Peter Lorre and collects his movies, hence why we have Slappy. I remember from Kaz's Facebook where he mentions Slappy saying he never knew just HOW many characters were inspired by lorre. There's also John K (creator of Ren and Stimpy, I know he's terrible) who mentioned on his personal blog that he's a big fan of Lorre which is why Ren from Ren and Stimpy is based off of him. I've notice Ren quotes some Peter Lorre movie quotes, aside from his famous catchphrase "YOU EEEDIOT" of course. (Check out this Ren and Stimpy comic where Ren meets Joel Cairo, a character Peter Lorre played)

I just think it's neat. He shows up everywhere all the time :) I made a joke Thomas The Tank Engine Peter Parody but @thekhaotickrab messaged me saying they found an actual Thomas character with Lorre's voice which is pretty hilarous. Many of these I find amusing because there's no reason for it to exist. Yeah, there's a Peter Parody transformer named Cosmos and he likes scaring people because he's lonely. Yeah, there's several in Scooby Doo for some reason. Yeah he's GOMEZ ADDAMS. He's also a GPS in hotel Transylvania 2. He's also a literal egg with legs in digimon. He's also a lamp.

I heard Lorre's dream was to continue to act forever. He sorta got that wish because he keeps respawning in cartoons forever. I hope this tradition keeps up. Slappy gets a lot of shit but I'm forever grateful to that ugly little fish for introducing me to all of this <3 May the Peter Parody live on forever!

#Bluebellthesponge #Srry i couldn't help but ramble #Peter Lorre #Peter lorre fish #Replies #Slappy laszlo #Slappy Spongebob #Laszlo Spongebob #the spongebob connoisseur

[itsclydebitches]

I honestly have no idea how they intend to greenlight volume 10 if it's not been greenlit already. They've announced the final season of Red vs Blue and a lot of early day fans are in agreement that the end of RvB is the signaling of the end of RT in general. It's their second biggest money maker next to RWBY. After this new season, it's over. What do they do next? Do RT really believe that RWBY is popular enough to coast on for another decade? It'll be a miracle if it lasts even one more year.

Their viewership has been on a decline since Volume 6, they've abused so much of their animation department that there's almost no one left, most of their VA talent for RWBY's popular characters aren't coming back due to all the controversies, any spinoffs or soft reboots or whatever keep going back to the Beacon era and don't really do much to help with the overall problems that are down to the roots of the company.

They even made their biggest ship that kept what few fans are left canon and put out half assed merch that sold out in minutes, and somehow they still haven't managed to find enough money to greenlight another volume?

If they somehow miraculously get Volume 10 made, it's probably going to be the last.

The last few years of RWBY have really highlighted for me how challenging it is to define "popularity" and "success" nowadays. Granted, a good chunk of that is simply my own ignorance about how the production side of things are run, but it nevertheless feels like there's this intense level of ambiguity that wasn't there in the past (or at least wasn't as obvious). Fandom itself has always been an unreliable source because depending on the corner of the internet you're in, you can get a wildly skewed perspective without engaging with everything that contradicts how "good" or "bad" you think things are going. As you say, merch sells out in minutes, yet neither the finances nor the implied security of that seems to be enough to land another Volume. There are questions about whether this could be a marketing scheme, wherein Volume 10's future is simply being kept under wraps to drum up interest. There's the question of whether popularity matters at all when we've got companies cancelling and pulling undoubtedly successful shows, all according to their own, long-term algorithms. On the one hand the information surrounding RT is all about the abuse of their workers, another scandal, how this might all tie into the strikes... and yet most of this is nothing new and RWBY has still secured movies, a soft reboot, comics, and books. I agree completely with your list above of all the ways in which the series is struggling (massively) and yet RWBY has been "dying" for half its run-time. So is this the final nail in the coffin—the inevitable ending that's been a long time coming—or just another year where the fandom unintentionally cries wolf?

I'm not so naive as to believe that things were actually simple 'back in the day'—that's the nostalgia talking—but it still seems like things were simpler in comparison to what we've got now. TV and its media equivalents used to be—or at least felt like—a fairly straightforward journey of airing, ratings, syndication, cancellation, renewal, and then (eventually) the viewer securing a copy for themselves via VHS and DVDs. Now it's like, "What do I do with the newbie webseries eventually bought up by a major corporation and moved from a free watch, to a company-specific streaming watch, to a different, more expensive streaming watch, all of which has led to a decade of success with various spinoffs, but apparently this webseries still isn't making enough money to continue? Regardless, it and everything else I love to watch is inching more and more towards digital-only copies, a status that is inherently nerve-wracking, which means that if it does suddenly crash and burn (given that this is one of two series keeping the original company afloat) circulating this story and maintaining the fandom will be that much harder."

I find that depressing and I'm someone who thinks RWBY is pretty awful right now. I can't imagine what that ambiguity and the state of streaming media in 2023 feels like to fans still in love with the show.

So yeah. Idk how they intend to greenlight Volume 10 either.

#rwde #rwby #mymetas

[desertfangs]

Can I ask 1. (Canon I outright reject), 3. (Obscure headcanon) and 8. (Unpopular opinion about them) for Armand and Daniel?😊

I hope you have a nice end of the year!🥰

Send me character asks. Specify a character or I will default to Daniel.

Thank you! I hope you also have a lovely end of the year and a wonderful start to the new one! (I can't believe it's almost 2024 wtf.)

1. Canon I outright reject

Night Island is still around & it's still owned wholly by Armand and Daniel (though it's definitely been moved under the name of a corporate umbrella by now). Armand is far, far too sentimental to sell something that was so vitally important to him. I think he lies about it in his book for two reasons: 1. He was still wounded and lashing out at Daniel, and he knew saying he'd sold most of the island would hurt him, and 2. After QotD was published, a flood of tourists "looking" for Lestat came to the island (same as we VC fans go to New Orleans and "look" for them... we know they're not real, but...) and Armand did not like that one bit.

I also think the name was changed and it's probably open 24 hours now with a brand spanking new resort hotel circa 1999 or whatever, but it's still theirs and they still call it Night Island. And they still use the Villa regularly, and try to get Lestat and Marius to agree to host some Coven events there, too.

3. Obscure headcanon

I believe Daniel and Armand were together until 1993 or 1994, and were traveling around trying to reconnect and rekindle their relationship when they finally had the fight that split them up "for good" pre-MtD. Granted, I think for Armand it was Daniel leaving him "for good." I think for Daniel it was more "I need to take a break and clear my head, I'm going to take a time out." But they are terrible at communicating, especially when they're fighting, so... we all know how that went.

For a more fun--"fun"-- obscure headcanon, here is the worst thing I think Armand ever did in the name of weird science according to Daniel (tw: animal cruelty): he read about Edison electrocuting that poor elephant and got really interested in how that electrocution worked. So he got a fish bowl and experimented with fish. Then one night, Daniel finds the bathtub full of dead rats with a toaster in it, plugged into the wall. They definitely fought about it, and they definitely moved out of that apartment that night. It might one of the only times Armand truly skeeved him out, worse even than the rats in the microwave. He also didn't take baths for a good six months after.

Okay, sorry sorry, but that has been in my head for a while.

8. Unpopular opinion about them

I'm so bad at these because tbh I never know what "the popular" opinions are.

I guess I will say, I don't think Armand ever regretted turning Daniel and was, in fact, happy with how he turned out. We only get little glimpses into his thoughts on the matter in QotD, but he seems pretty enamored with Daniel as a vampire. For all his fears that Daniel might come to resent him for it, or no longer want/need him, he does seem pleased with the result. (Is this unpopular? I honestly do not know.)

I also don't think Daniel was a mess of a vampire or a bad fledgling. I think he experienced being a newbie vampire with an extreme intensity that made him quicker to laugh or more prone to staring at the patterns in the wallpaper, but I don't think that's particularly abnormal for a new vampire, either. I also think Daniel was especially elated to finally get the Blood - it meant not only would he not die a mortal death, but it was proof positive that Armand truly loved him as he always believed and wanted to spend eternity with him. He was riding a hell of a high, but I don't think he was mad, or out of his head, or a problem fledgling in any way.

I also firmly believe they had some solidly good years together in that time, and even though there were fights and arguments (and Armand's fears that he tried to manifest as self-fulfilling prophecy), they did actually have plenty of fun together until they split.

Again, I have no idea how "unpopular" any of that is.

Thank you again for the ask and happy new year!

#armand #daniel molloy #armand/daniel #devil's minion #vc headcanons #vc #answers in the desert #aberandlime #character ask meme #vampire chronicles

[marzipanandminutiae]

Mind you I've never read LW but i kinda enjoyed the 2019 movie, why did you hate it? (Maybe i just wanna put Timothee Ch on a leash) feel free to go off 🌷

So, the costumes sucked from a historical perspective. Which would be less Objectively Bad and more Just Not My Thing...if the designers hadn't gone ON AND ON AT LENGTH about how ~Authentic~ they tried to make everything.

Didn't claim accuracy and didn't do accuracy: meh, whatever

DID claim accuracy and didn't do accuracy, AND won an Oscar for it: urge to kill rising

the hair design was particularly egregious, with the designer at one point saying they chose [checks notes] insane flyaways and half-up hair on adult women (who would have worn their hair entirely pinned up, for practical reasons and as a cultural marker of adulthood) because that seemed "more authentic than coiffures"

MORE AUTHENTIC

THAN THE WAY ACTUAL WOMEN BACK THEN

WORE THEIR ACTUAL HAIR

AS DEMONSTRATED IN PHOTOGRAPHS- EVEN CANDIDS -AND PORTRAITS

"blee bloo they didn't have hairspray!!!" THEY HAD POMADE. HAVING YOUR HAIR VERY SMOOTH WAS THE STYLE IN THE 1860S, EVEN FOR POOR WOMEN, AND MASSIVE FLYAWAYS ARE HUGELY IMPRACTICAL, AND NOT ALL FIXATIVES ARE HAIRSPRAY YOU ABSOLUTE-

[Marzi.exe has encountered a problem. please hold]

apart from the hair, there were fit issues and at least one case of Trying To Copy the 1994 Movie, But Worse (Amy's black and white dress in Paris).

1994. the pattern is soutache, a kind of applied trim done with flat cord that was very popular throughout the mid-late 19th century

2019. You cannot tell me the choice to have her in a white dress with black floral patterning, in effectively the exact same scene, was a coincidence.

also I'm pretty sure there was one shot with an actress visibly wearing Uggs. (EDIT- thankfully I am informed that this is a set photo and the Uggs were not visible in the finished film. i had forgotten this. good to know! leaving the pic there because STUPID HAIR and HATLESSNESS)

also the Pretty Pastel Princess Dresses (with overly fluffy attempts at bertha collars) and Matching Long Gloves (wrist gloves were popular for evening back then, and they were almost always white) in the Concord ball scene.

is it a Civil War-era ball, or is it a parade of "southern belles" at Cypress Gardens in 1995? leaning towards the latter.

once again, the choice to put Meg in pink for the ball instead of her book-described blue dress is something 1994 did first, and did better IMO

also Meg's 2015 Coachella wedding look, the fact that none of these girls from a poor family seemed to wear each other's old clothes ever, and the lazy choice to dress Jo in half-menswear instead of actually looking into menswear-inspired women's clothing in the era (which was a Thing!). but more than just the costumes pissed me off

they just...didn't seem to understand the era, or want to, or care? it was a bunch of little things that served to make it all more #relatable to modern audiences but ultimately undermined the setting:

Marmee telling a random young man she's never properly met to call her Marmee, because "everyone does." her DAUGHTERS call her that. her ACTUAL CHILDREN. who the hell else would? it's not a derivative of her name; it's a variant of Mama. Laurie can graduate to Marmee when he's an actual family friend

Jo wearing some of Laurie's clothing because "she stole it when they were hanging out in his room," according to an interview. um, NO NO AND NO, they are teenagers and that would distinctly not fly on several levels even in her progressive family. I might actually buy this if it were like "he gave them some clothes for an amateur theatrical and she kept them;" the actual Alcott sisters had a costume trunk for their plays, which is still on display at their house. but these writers clearly think a teenage boy and girl could be in his bedroom together unsupervised, for long periods of time, habitually, in 1860-whatever. which is absolutely incorrect

Jo saying "okay" in refusing Laurie's proposal. this is so tiny, I know, but while that term did already exist, it was a joke phrase only. this would be like saying "lol" while turning down your best friend's proposal today. once again, it's an example of Relatability mattering more than actually understanding the world these characters lived in

there are more, but I've blocked them out. I just really, really hated it on many levels

#ask #anon #lw19 #long post #rant

[unforgivablego]

I hate it when people discount Aziraphale without understanding him as a character. Partly, it's more because people like to see bad guys doing good things. And if a demon saves children from death, it means more to them than if an angel did it, even if he lied to heaven and put himself in danger. Essentially: “he’s an angel, it’s in his nature to be kind, so what’s surprising?”

I'm not against Crowley. I like both characters, but I don't like how there are too many defenders of Crowley, while Aziraphale is constantly made into a villain. After the second season, they were generally credited with clear, disgusting images - a poor puppy suffering from unrequited love and a stupid angel who broke his heart. This superficiality is so annoying. As if only Crowley is feeling bad and only he is suffering, which means only he should be pitied.

My friend and I are currently watching a show where the bad guy who starts out doing terrible things becomes a sweetheart in the middle of the season 2. And I watch how she sheds tears from every good deed he does, as if she had completely forgotten what he did a couple of episodes ago. And I have to endure this with a mixture of misunderstanding and rejection: “Are you really serious?” There was literally a scene where a character consciously kills the main character's brother on purpose and then a couple minutes later says he's sorry. “See? He repents,” says a friend. As if that would change the fact that he killed a person (don't worry, the brother survived thanks to a lucky accident (killer doesn’t know it) but imagine if he actually killed him and then came to apologize). One good deed by a bad person always overshadows all other bad deeds, making him appear good.

Also, I think it's all about Tennant's popularity and his image as a demon. I have nothing against both, but often, if a bad character is played by a handsome sexy actor, the idol of millions and the owner of hearts, then he is loved more according to the standard. Just like in the series that my friend and I are watching now.

It’s annoying too how many people sometimes turn a blind eye to how “unkind” Crowley can be. Like, “you can forgive him everything because he once did a good deed.” I'm not saying Crowley is bad. No need to attack me with slippers. I'm talking about the tearful art that makes Crowley look broken and Aziraphale cold and cruel. I'm talking about hurt fanfiction, in which Crowley suffers more than me in the deepest depression (calm down already, seriously, I have enough suffering, give me a rainbow, fluff, romance and love). All these jokes about Aziraphale having to do an apology dance in the third season (despite this, I’m also looking forward to such a scene). Analysis on TikTok, where the angel is often called stupid and naive (the coffee theory just kills me, I fucking hate it).

Yes, I love memes. That's funny. Keep making jokes about the ineffable bureaucracy speed running their relationship in a year, while these idiots have gotten nowhere in 6,000 years. And about Nina and Maggie, the heads of the “Geordie Shore” program. About Metatwat, who got into the hands the Book of Life and he decided to shit us a disgusting fanfic. Carry on, I like it. But as long as these are jokes and not a hostile imposition.

There have already been so many quarrels about this. And all because people like one character more than another. And here we again return to the fact that we ourselves constantly separate them. We devalue one thing or another, and then hope for a happy ending.

This established clichéd system in the fandom is simply killing me. Therefore, I am grateful to every person who digs deeper than the sand sprinkled on top.

#Aziraphale #Crowley #fuck coffee theory #metatwat #ineffable bureaucracy #ineffable idiots #ineffable lovers #crowley and aziraphale #maggie and nina #metatron #Aziraphale did nothing wrong #Crowley is not disaster puppy #stop being stupid #good omens #good omens 2 #good omens season two #good omens season 2 #good omens series #michael sheen #david tennant #neil gaiman #neil gaiman meme #coffee theory #aziraphale defense squad #aziraphale defender #fuck the metatron #good omens tv #good omens show #good omens fandom

[vifetoile]

Why Gandalf Never Married, a 1985 Talk by Terry Pratchett

Originally delivered as a speech at Novacon 15. Excerpt below:

But I must accept that people called witches have existed. In a sense they have been created by folklore, by what I call the Flying Saucer process -- you know, someone sees something they can't or won't explain in the sky, is aware that there is a popular history of sightings of flying saucers, so decides that what he has seen is a flying saucer, and pretty soon that "sighting" adds another few flakes to the great snowball of saucerology. In the same way, the peasant knows that witches are ugly old women who live by themselves because the folklore says so, so the local crone must be a witch. Soon everyone locally KNOWS that there is a witch in the next valley, various tricks of fate are laid at her door, and so the great myth chugs on.

One may look in vain for similar widespread evidence of wizards. In addition to the double handful of doubtful practitioners mentioned above, half of whom are more readily identifiable as alchemists or windbags, all I could come up with was some vaguely masonic cults, like the Horseman's Word in East Anglia. Not much for Gandalf in there.

Now you can take the view that of course this is the case, because if there is a dirty end of the stick then women will get it. Anything done by women is automatically downgraded. This is the view widely held -- well, widely held by my wife every since she started going to consciousness-raising group meetings -- who tells me it's ridiculous to speculate on the topic because the answer is so obvious. Magic, according to this theory, is something that only men can be really good at, and therefore any attempt by women to trespass on the sacred turf must be rigorously stamped out. Women are regarded by men as the second sex, and their magic is therefore automatically inferior. There's also a lot of stuff about man's natural fear of a woman with power; witches were poor women seeking one of the few routes to power open to them, and men fought back with torture, fire and ridicule.

I'd like to know that this is all it really is. But the fact is that the consensus fantasy universe has picked up the idea and maintains it. I incline to a different view, if only to keep the argument going, that the whole thing is a lot more metaphorical than that. The sex of the magic practitioner doesn't really enter into it. The classical wizard, I suggest, represents the ideal of magic -- everything that we hope we would be, if we had the power. The classical witch, on the other hand, with her often malevolent interest in the small beer of human affairs, is everything we fear only too well that we would in fact become.

Oh well, it won't win me a PhD. I suspect that via the insidious medium of picture books for children the wizards will continue to practice their high magic and the witches will perform their evil, bad-tempered spells. It's going to be a long time before there's room for equal rites.

#equal rites #terry pratchett #discworld #granny weatherwax #wyrd sisters #gnu terry pratchett #fantasy #witches #myth #the patriarchy

[ayashitetsuko]

Izzy the Hierophant: The Major Arcana that reminds us to get back to work

As a tarot student, I am fascinated by the interpretations made by fellow tarot enthusiasts in the Our Flag Means Death (OFMD) fandom, on which Major Arcana card best represents Izzy Hands. Popular fanmade decks such as The Cat Bandit Tarot by artist Jennie Planet see him as The Devil—a force that keeps the lovers apart—and Judgement—beating Ed down when he was already at his worst. Valid as they are, these interpretations see Izzy as a negative influence, but I like to offer an alternative take. 

I see Izzy’s energy and role in the canon (and eventually, in my personal life as the viewer) as the Hierophant. An energy often found uninspiring, but when used correctly, it can help people make their dreams come true. 

In her book The Holistic Tarot (2015, North Atlantic Books), tarot master Benebell Wen uses Tradition, Conventionalism, and Institutionalism as the keywords that explain the Hierophant card.

“The Hierophant is a holy man, an important figure in his society … People rely on him to be a channel between heaven and earth. In a reading, the card typically indicates a desire to follow conventions and norms, a traditionalist—one who holds traditional values,” she writes. 

The Hierophant is often seen as the card that calls for querents to be conservative. Instead of thinking outside the box, it expects them to open the manuals and follow the instructions. When discussing making our dreams come true, the Hierophant energy is often seen as an obstacle—curbing creativity and exploration in favour of traditions. 

We did see these traits displayed by Izzy in various scenes, such as in Episode 4 when he demanded Ed to come up with a defensive plan after they noticed a Spanish ship coming their way or when he threatened to blackmail Lucius for … you know what he did.

While these scenes might cement Izzy’s role in the story as the Bad Guy, his role is also a reminder of the importance of maintaining a structure—even on a pirate ship. Because this structure, no matter how dull it is, enables us to function and create the impact we want in our personal and professional lives.

The Hierophant energy

The Hierophant card is known for having a restrictive–perhaps even oppressive–energy. In my early days as a tarot student, I tended to roll my eyes whenever it showed up. It was not the kind of nuance I wanted as a young person. But eventually, I learned how the Hierophant energy could positively impact one’s life when used wisely. Instead of preventing progress, it can help with it. 

As someone who works in the tech startup community, I regularly meet people driven to succeed. Buzzwords such as “innovation” and “disruption” are being thrown around lightly; everybody wants to be the next big thing that changes the world. Big ideas, even the most unrealistic ones, are cherished and encouraged.

But people are being brought back to Earth rather quickly in this industry. There are even statistics to prove it: Up to 95 per cent of startups fail simply because they cannot find product-market fit, according to various sources. In layman’s terms, they create products and services that nobody needs. This is why startups are commonly advised to implement rigorous market research and product testing to prove that their ideas work; to have the discipline to do more than just talk.

On an individual level, the Hierophant energy is one I tap into to achieve my goals. To be productive, I need to run my days smoothly. This means clearing my housekeeping tasks before leaving home, logging off social media during work hours, and ensuring I eat my vegetables to stay healthy. They are boring AF, but they provide me with a structure to keep the machine well-oiled.

When I look back on my life, all the times I managed to achieve and create something good for myself (and hopefully others) are when I stopped daydreaming and started implementing the Hierophant energy into my daily life. While it is important to explore new ideas, all of them will be pointless without the structure that ensures it is being developed properly. 

Now, back to Izzy

One might see Izzy as a traditional pirate who is resistant to change. I mean, what the fuck is even a retirement? It does not exist in this line of work. 

This context places Izzy as a counter to Stede Bonnet’s “fresh, groundbreaking” ideas about piracy. It is easy to see Izzy and his beliefs as outdated and needing disruption. But we must remember that piracy is a dangerous business. While pirates generally entered the business with a ready-to-die mindset, a structure that allows the crew to be functional and prepared to handle risks should be appreciated instead of being seen as a threat. 

This is especially more relevant in a situation where a leader struggles to function properly. Ed is a smart and gifted captain, but his short attention span and mood swings have made it hard for him to function on some days and for the crew to maintain their trust in him. His wit may have allowed them to survive another day, but will it be sustainable without a system to ensure that? What happens when he is having his moment? At the very least, they would need a plan.

This is a calling for us to look into our own lives and see: In which area do we need a first mate to yell and remind us to focus?

--

This article was first published in Above All Else: An Appreciation of Izzy Hands, a zine dedicated to Con O'Neill's Izzy Hands from Our Flag Means Death.

#izzy hands #our flag means death #tarot #tarotblr #izzy hands zine #above all else #fandom zine #contributor spotlight

[adarkrainbow]

So, here’s the post where I “MAKE A POINT” (TM). 

I shared a The Critical Drinker video earlier about the leaked first images of the Disney’s Snow-White live-action remake. I only discovered afterward that indeed he seems like a pretty reactionary guy, if not according to some very bigoted (I notably discovered that upon watching his videos about The Witcher where he showed 1) a clear lack of information about the author and the books the series was based on and 2) a belief that diversity in fantasy in general was a bad thing, if it wasn’t a diversity where each ethnicity had its own country and geographical area and stuck to it). So yeah, bad stuff and I clearly won’t be looking at more of his channel.

But, through his persona of a rude, coarse alcoholic, in the Snow-White video he actually made quite good points - which I see know might have come from the wrong place, but are in themselves actually very good points. Stuff such as the unecessary nature of this remake, when the original Snow-White stayed an untouched master classic ; the whole backfiring stupidity of removing the dwarfs from the story out of political correctness and, to quote the Critical Drinker, “to feed Peter Dinklage’s massive ego”. 

And then there are some points that stuck with me, because the way they were formulated. One was, from the video: 

“A classic European fairytale about a young woman with skin as white as snow, played by an actress of Columbian descent, so that everyone can see themselves in 19th century German folklore”.

And the other wasn’t actually from the video, but from the top comment (I cut the comment to get to the idea itself): “Disney’s systematic erasure of Europeans from their own folklore”. 

These two comments made me think a lot. For example it made me think back to the idea that “Snow-White is an universal fairytale”. Which... wasn’t actually. Nowadays you’ll hear that Snow-White is one of the most famous fairytales and that everybody in the world knows it - but when you look back at the historical truth... Snow-White was massively popularized and made “universal” by Disney. Before the Disney movie, Snow-White wasn’t well known outside of Germany itself and English-speaking countries. In France for example, you won’t hear of Snow-White in the 19th century - Snow-White references only start appearing in the mid-20th century (at least to my knowledge). The idea of the universality of Snow-White is, at worst a lie, at best an anachronism - and I will rather go with the anachronism here.

Because yes NOW Snow-White is universally known and spread everywhere and a classic in many countries. But it is a fairly “recent” phenomenon caused by the Disney movie - and this shows most notably in the way the widespread version is the Disney one, with only one attempt at killing for example, and the dwarfs playing an important active part in the story. 

And then I think about the other comment. Why, oh why, would Disney try to force this fairytale to fit modern day standards when it is a “19th century German fairytale”? Because when you think about it, it does seem silly, for Disney to latch onto a story that is very specifically German, that is very specifically from the 19th century, that is present in this given collection of stories renowned for having in it very outdated view (such as the glorification of the mother/demonization of step-mothers, or the antisemitism of the time). Why are they clinging to this story to the point they decide to “racially update it”, when this is a story that precisely CANNOT be racially updated because it belongs to 19th century Germany? If they want diversity, they could have taken ANY OTHER VERSION of Snow-White, or any other actual fairytale belonging to non-European cultures (it’s not like Africa or the Middle-East or Asia or South America didn’t have fairytales and folktales of their own!). 

No, with this movie, Disney is clearly showing a “woke gash-grabbing” movement here, and this is quite sad. They cling onto this movie not just because it is their first great success and their iconic movie - because note one thing. Disney hasn’t “touched” to this movie all up until now. Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, they all got sequels and musical adaptations on stage and the like. Snow-White? Nada, nothing, it was the sacred untouchable piece they never did anything with. And this is why it worked - they did an excellent movie that worked very well on its own, didn’t need to be updated or changed - or rather couldn’t be updated or changed without some bad consequences, as proven here. So it isn’t like with their other movies, Disney’s doesn’t have a “tradition” of re-doing or expanding their Snow-White, for them to make a live-action remake is a big move (especially when you consider that Disney’s Snow-White is still to this day the most well-known and famous and praised movie adaptation of Snow-White, towering over all the other movies). 

And again - they are literaly throwing themselves into the worst outcome possible because Snow-White is the WORST fairytale to pick from when you want to fight or avoid racism. Because the whole “white as snow” trait is so prevalent to the character. If you make the character not “white as snow”, you make an absurd move where the character’s name doesn’t make any sense (unless you choose to give her another white as snow body part, maybe she could have had hair white as snow? Just a suggestion, to keep the name). If you make the prince a character of color, you are accused of perpetuating the stereotype “all non-white men want, praise and glorify white women”. If you make the dwarfs characters of colors, you are accused of keeping people of color as secondary characters instead of main ones, only here to highlight and support a white main lead. If you make the evil queen not-white, then you are also accused of white supremacy since Snow-White’s “white” beauty tops the queen’s own beauty...

Snow-White is a fairytale that can work as “not racist” ONLY in an all-white setting, be it medieval Europe or Ancient Asia. Because again, this is a “problematic” fairytale that comes from a given time period and can only work in this context... But since Disney tries to sell desperately the idea that “Snow-White is an universal fairytale where everybody could recognize themselves into”, they decide to march blindly into the bad racial connotations, clearly just to “fit the fashion”...

Anyway I feel a bit tired now and I have more specific thoughts about why having Snow-White not being played by a “white” actress can cause bad connotations, but I will make a different post for it since this post is already quite long. 

In short... Snow-White is a “problematic” fairytale, and the massive success of Disney made us forget it, but yeah, of all fairytales, this is a big problem. The reason Cinderella is still the most beloved and widespread story in America, and why having characters of color in it (such as in the movie version of Hammerstein’s Cinderella) does not pose ANY PROBLEM WHATSOEVER is because Cinderella is more than one given story stuck in 19th century Germany. It was also a fairytale written in 17th century France, and in Italy, and in many other countries - and even continents - and it is a story that got widespread through time and cultures, and it is a story that DOES NOT RELY ON OLD FASHION EUROPEAN STANDARDS OF BEAUTY. Cinderella is not a “problematic” fairytale.

... Well except if you are one of those people who go by the “Cinderella is too passive and she should be getting up and kicking her stepmother’s butt and beating down her sisters and throwing them out of the house at the very beginning of the story”. But that’s a whole another topic. 

#snow white #disney's snow white #snow white live action #i am a bit tired #so this post probably won't make sense #but anyway

[jennilah]

2023 Wrap-Up!

Every NYE I spend some time going over my diary and reflecting on all of the good and bad that happened over the year. Its nice diving in and seeing what the real highlights were, and just having a moment to go over it all

Like every year, I don't want you to compare your life to mine. I encourage your own reflection and I genuinely hope you find your own happy highlights ♥ every happy thing, big or small, is worthy

I definitely didn't top last year as the Best Year Fucking Ever, but I tried!

I tried.. too hard!

I overloaded myself with slightly too many fun things, I think. The fun was definitely FUN, but I booked so many events that it got a bit overwhelming at times. This year was characterized by chaos and uncertainty and just getting wild and wacky with it, and having a shit ton of anxiety nearly the whole time! woo!

there were so many entries this year just completely laced with nervous wreck energy. It's kind of a miracle I was able to wrestle it all.

Okay.

Apparently, according to the ole diary, I started off the year incredibly stressed about work, and oh yeah... yeah, yep, I remember now. I was working on by-far the most stressful film of my life and that's precisely when I became a full-blown stoner LMAO. I won't elaborate more.

Holy fuck I went to the movies a LOT. There were so many bangers this year that I often saw things twice. I went a total of 29 times, unless I missed any other time I'm forgetting. In addition to that, I kept going with watching slasher films on my own, which I still thoroughly enjoy even if they're taking a backseat to Saw right now.

I had a HANDFUL of exciting releases this year! Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, Landscape With Invisible Hand, Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, and Napoleon! Each one was a completely different experience to work on, but each one was special in its own way. Every day I wake up and I am fucking thrilled that this is my job, this is my life.

I went to a Muse concert which was definitely a highlight of the year, it was so fucking awesome, and now they're up there amongst my very few other favorite bands.

One of my best friends in the world, my old college roommate, came up and visited me for a few days in Montreal. We had a lot of fun together and I can't wait for the next time I hang out with her- hopefully much sooner than 6 years :D (but really, it felt like no time passed since I last saw her.)

Then my parents moved out of my childhood home pretty suddenly. It was partially a mid-life crisis, but it was actually a blessing. They were starting to feel really cooped up and everything was changing around them. The beautiful woods that surrounded the home were slowly getting torn down and replaced by construction and power generators. It was really sad to see the place where I grew up slowly become cold and industrial and unrecognizable.

But now? Now they have the lake house of their dreams. It's gorgeous, and its a hit with the whole family. Also, in our old house, we were so secluded from the rest of the town. Now, they are already popular in the new neighborhood and everyone already knows their names and invite them to all of the local lake parties. As caring, outgoing people, I think they really needed this. They finally feel like they're a part of a tight-knit community, which our old town didn't really have.

Also: LAKE!

They grew up on Long Island, and all of my family is on Long Island, so I think a part of us always belonged to the ocean. The water always called me, too. They bought a boat in 2 seconds flat and are really enjoying living on the water again, and I get to live vicariously through them every time I visit home.

But first- Between the new house and the INDUSTRY STRIKES (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) upturning just about everything around me, I, just like my parents, needed to take hold of my life and start changing things too. I was feeling mentally cooped-up and kind of exploded.

I really loved my last studio, but after a series of some really extreme layoffs, it was also becoming unrecognizable. I wanted to try something new, so taking a leap of faith in the middle of really unreliable industry times, I decided to say a very tearful goodbye and join a new studio.

It has been a really positive change so far. I really enjoy it there, and I am meeting so many new amazing people that I am having a lot of fun working with, and I think I am performing pretty well there too. The atmosphere is also very nice, and the projects are really cool. I can see myself working there for a very long time! We'll see!

In addition to quitting my job and starting a new one as a wild new change, I also started getting TATTOOS. Just fuckin decided to GO FOR IT- and now look at me, addicted. I already have three, and next week I start my half sleeve! We're only getting STARTED. I want to be a canvas for other people's beautiful art, which is something I've been wanting to do for yearssss.

I made a new cosplay, Michael Myers :) It is also some of the most fun I've had cosplaying in a long time- people LOVE him. Kids, blushing women, grown men, everyone! I can't wait to wear it again next con season.

I tabled at Montreal Comic Con, which was.... an experience. Not a super positive one, but it was fine. It was definitely a memory I made, lmao. (The people I met were the best part! ♥♥)

I still need to make that Etsy page so I can sell my leftovers (yeahhhhh)

Between jobs, I got a whole MONTH off to do whatever I wanted, so I spent it watching movies, going home to visit the new lake house, and getting more tattoos.

Before the new job, I attended Osheaga again. I only went for one day and got ridiculously high and spent most of it hiding in a tent, crawling back to planet Earth. I still had a lot of fun though- I just don't think I'll be getting high at Igloofest in February. I learned my lesson.

I went to a wedding! I love weddings! It was a lovely wedding! And I got to see many of my college friends again for the first time since graduating, which was just so nice and it made me really happy.

Then I went to LA! WOOOOOOOOOOO This was by far the most fun Ive had traveling in my life yet, that whole trip was so much fun. I have to go back one day, there was so much I have still yet to see. I got to see another one of my best friends from college again, the Tar Pits, DisneyLand, museums, and go to Halloween: 45 Years of Terror, which was so much fun!!!!!

Then I got back from the trip and got really into Saw, which has been obvious lmao. WOops! You never know what the ole autism will latch onto!

Having a new fandom to enjoy is always its own bundle of fun. And because of it, I was able to book tickets to Saw: The Musical for when I went home for christmas. As you know because I talked about it literally two days ago, I saw it with my cousins and we all had a bucket full of fun. It was really nice getting to spend time with them alone without the rest of the family and truly just bond as cousins- I dont have siblings, they are the closest thing to it for me. I adore them.

And now... I am home... and I am happily SITTING STILL!!!

I kind of overbooked my year and it left me feeling a little more overwhelmed than I meant to. I am definitely more of a homebody than this round-up suggests.

Next year, I will still continue to push myself to go out and do exciting things, but maybe not so back-to-back!!!!

It also didn't help that this year there were a few really stressful family health moments which are still ongoing and affecting me. It's rough and still happening in the background. Next year might be really difficult, and I will have to more heavily lean on my support systems. I am just thankful I have them

Also, I didnt realize how many times this year I reconnected in-person with my college friends who I havent seen in years. That was so nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope I get to see even more of my long time friends next year.

This entry is all over the place, lmao

I think thats it!!

#personal #jennilargh

[avalonmoonshinesstuff]

I just realised Something about a portion of fandom I don't really engage with all that much. Because I don't want to, btw.

In all other shows, movies, books, etc, every single bad person is at least somewhat 'ugly' according to the narrative. The 'problematic' characters rarely get acknowledged because there are so many good looking characters who are good themselves (I remember Annabelle from the first book of Percy Jackson, I think, and there were more ofc).

However, Rowling's main idea about appearances was that it was an illusion. Every single good looking character is either reprehensible or ends up dying (Cedric) in the same book they were introduced*. The story wants to be relatable to how every teen feels, and no matter what, we all have insecurities.

However, they're just teens, and on top of that, at least one or more of our main teens have done something terrible or badwrong (Hermione with skeeter and Marietta). So, they aren't exceptionally beautiful and neither are they exceptionally good. Even the side characters who are popular come across as jerks to some of their family members, making their sibling cry.

This creates a problem for the people who don't have a sense of self yet, or are so scarred they can only look at life through black & white lenses.

The Halo effect playing greatly onto the above, we're presented with another set of teens, two of whom are described as extremely sought after by the opposite sex, one of whom is popular, and the final one who has endeared himself by showing ugly Snivellus his place (via map and the Verbal Sparring). They all, by the end of this introduction, understand that Snivellus is badwrong and doesn't deserve anything good.

'It's clear he's the villain, and has been since forever, see, these people agree with me and they're the Protagonist's parents.' Whether this is believed because of the Halo effect or taking Harry's perspective to mean a God pov, I can't tell. The point being, they are even more convinced.

They want an escape from how difficult it is to sort out their feeling about these people the author keeps throwing at their face so why not attach to the characters who are dead or strongly attached to the protagonist (so they can never be badwrong in later books). A safety blanket of sorts, if you will. And in doing so, they completely ignore the nuances of the scenes presented in the last book. Because they are attached, they'd rather call badwrong Snivellus' love impure than explore what the montage of all his memories implied. That beauty is skin deep.

The thing about people who like such black and white scenarios and people is: they will always fall prey to the Halo Effect. And it's extremely painful to be disillusioned about your favourites. So they may never get disillusioned.

All this to say, sometimes I wonder why that part of the fandom is like 'that'. And it's just that this is the safety net in this series, or this is just how vanilla people outside of fandom coming in can take.

And that's fine (coz I'm crazy for the marauders era as well, just with a slightly wider taste pallet).

TL Dr: The antis are attracted to wholesome ships and since Rowling made it so difficult to find such ships until much later where you are emotionally connected with each character, the antis attached to a bunch of (mostly) dead people who, by association to the Hero of the story, being pretty, popular, and clear on their behaviour with the badwrong confusing character, are all good. They were desperately looking for the safety net in the books and found some. Also, since antis are the way they are, maybe they believe the fictional character being dead means people would not criticise their wholesome ship? Idk.

A/N:

*The only properly handsome man - Bill - barely gets mentioned, marries a beautiful woman, and imo the only reason he doesn't die is because he didn't revel in his handsomeness or popularity (him liking Snape in school is so cute + that disqualifies him from being popular with the antis since he likes the badwrong character). Also, he was literally scarred on his once handsome face to show that his wife actually loved him and didn't just choose him to have beautiful babies. Her being a veela and owning her Frenchness were already flaws (in the narrative's opinion) so all she needed was a scarred husband. Now, they both don't have to die 🤣.

#idk what to tag lol #this isn't about him so I won't tag him #not hp related #not really #at least a little #hp #anti anti #proship #proshipping #if you read the undertones of me telling you that your fav isn't that great #im sorry #sincerely #this is just a post on anti behaviour #and I don't actually believe the whole of that part of the fandom is like that #its just that #the most cencorship and shaming I've faced came from that part of the fandom #in which I don't engage but enjoy silently (via ao3) because I genuinely don't want to talk to yall #d r a m a #fandom analysis #yay bill and fleur lived because of Character 'flaws' #i love those dumb marauders btw #just in a different way #than him #fandom

[alectology-archive]

ohh im sure youve maybe already discussed this but if you're up for it id LOVE to hear your full take on Min. personally i like her okay, but I've never understood the massive favouritism of her on reddit, and it really annoyed me that so much time is spent on her and rand, and so little on elayne/avi/rand, tho obviously elayne and aviendha.. have their own storylines which min. doesnt really

There’s definitely a Type of crowd on reddit which makes her a very popular character there - characters like Egwene and Elayne who’re complex, willing to set themselves against their respective partners, realistically flawed & ambitious aren’t quite as popular for the same reasons.

As for Min herself... well. In general, my feelings about her have progressively gone from 'deeply disinterested in her’ to ‘deep dislike’ over time and it’s such a shame because I’m very fascinated by whatever is up with her ability. It lowkey reads like a very, very minor way of manipulating the Pattern and I've previously kind of compared it to whatever the Finn do & the Seanchan's own omen-reading practices (although I do need to admit that RJ has stated that what the Finn do is very different from Min's powers). If I weren't so irritated by how she ends up getting credit for a fashion trend in Cairhien when 1. She didn't actually start the trend 2. She didn’t like dressing the way she did and only did it because she thought Rand liked it 3. And If Dobraine had actually been praising her for talents other than dolling herself up for Rand, I would actually obsess over the fact that she got called Lady ta'veren because the text lowkey allows for that interpretation in a way. But I digress.

To get back on topic, the main issues I take with her characterisation are:

1. Her contributions to Rand's trauma, even if they're unintentional are massive - these include dumai's wells, Semirhage & Cadusane (I include her since she spends a lot of time bullying Rand or just being a Problem in general. She's not a good mentor figure.)

2. She receives undeserved praise all the time for supporting Rand during his downspiral when she does nothing but exist in the background. She’s acknowledged as Rand's emotional support gf in the fandom pretty widely but this is pretty much nonsense because she doesn't do anything to actually help him with his mental health. 

3. She encourages Rand to resort to unhealthy coping mechanisms (resorting to sex during moments of emotional distress) while discouraging him from nurturing healthy coping mechanisms (she also gets really bothered when she isn’t the centre of attention in private)

4. It also definitely gets on my nerves how Min is constantly complaining about having to share Rand with two other women & always reminds the readers that Rand is involved in a polygamous relationship - Avi, Elayne and Rand easily read like they’re involved in a polyamorous relationship without her tbh. 

5. Her arc of embracing femininity & constructing her personality around an idea she has of the kind of women Rand prefers (even if Rand liked her perfectly well before she started changing herself for him and never asked her to change herself for him) is one of the worst things to come out of the books. Sometimes her pants are so tight and her heels are so high that she can't walk properly. It’s kind of funny how she’s constantly complaining and blaming him for problems he isn't to blame for because she hates that she's supposed to love him according to prophecy.

6. Min is used to replace more healthy relationships like the ones Rand has with the Maidens & his friends from home which also really grates on my nerves since the books where they take centre stage are my favourite ones

7. She encourages and excuses Rand's bad behaviour a bunch (which Avi and Elayne would never have done). I got this vibe especially during TGS.

8. She blabs about Rand's trauma to practically everybody - including people who're looking to take advantage of him/manipulate him.

9. Min also threatens Rand with physical abuse when he's going through rough patches (this includes using her knives on him? The narrative plays this off as a fun, kinky thing when it really isn't)

10. Also because I’m petty I specifically hate her for that scene from TGH where she gets mad at Egwene for ‘tossing Rand aside’ when she wasn’t romantically interested in him anymore (like ???) She seems to feel that platonic relationships don’t matter as much as romantic ones do & pretty much behaves like it during the rest of the series lol.

RJ is to blame for a bunch of this, obviously, but Min doesn't have enough of a personality outside of Rand for me to really find it in myself to redeem her in my head, tbh.

I will admit that the entire point of providing Rand with an emotional support gf when he's supposed to be in a mental health downspiral was a pretty ridiculous choice on RJ’s part. I suppose Min as a character was set up to fail all along - she can't provide Rand any actual help because that would mean helping Rand out of his downspiral, you know? It gives the same vibes as the pointless plotpoint where Cadsuane is assigned as Rand's therapist when her method of accomplishing tasks involves bullying, abusing and harassing people until they’re sufficiently cowed.

#still think Rand should've had a warder gf tbh #since min doesn't have plot anyway it couldn've been her. #although the way she's written in the books I definitely don't buy her talent with knives or her interest in philosophy/reading #it seems very forced and ooc #you know who else is (actually) good with his knives and would actually make a good warder- #asks #cirillasedai #min farshaw #text #wheel of time

[dracomort]

You are so right Tom Ripley is what you would get if you put Draco Malfoy and Tom Riddle in a blender lmao a well seasoned taco if you will 🌮

Sorry to bring the 1999 film to you awareness…I’ve almost finished the series and am debating checking out the film but the vibes seem a little off. Is it at all worth watching? It seems weirdly sappy and generally off brand for the source material

Tl;dr a bad adaptation but a... good film? According to people that aren't massive haters (ie. NOT me).

TALENTED MR RIPLEY SPOILERS FORTHCOMING

It's... the kind of film that is good if you're watching it without having read (and liked) the source material. Sort of like Kubric's The Shining. A lot of people enjoyed it, including people who have read the book, so bear that in mind. I tend to have extremely strong opinions on most things so you may still enjoy it but I loathed it lol. Brevity is not my strength so this is going to be long, sry.

You can read the following quote from the director and see if you want to see an adaptation of Ripley by someone with this opinion:

A legitimate gripe that fans of the novel might voice is that I entirely missed the point of the book, because the book celebrates an amoral central character who gets away with murder and doesn't seem to suffer for it. And part of the fun of the novel is that he doesn't seem to care. [...] You know that he'll have no remorse about killing other people to get what he wants. And there's a kind of glee in seeing him do it. But it's not a glee that I wanted to transform into the film, partly because of the nature of the way you experience film. But, if that's my technical position, it's also my moral position. I don't want to tell a story about a man who gets away with murder and doesn't care. It doesn't interest me.

Minghella

Sorry, but WHY did you adapt RIPLEY if that was how you felt about the source material. Tom is a deeply sensitive, emotional person, but also a stone-cold psychopath who not only doesn't feel remorse—bar brief moments of clarity—but also believes he's entirely morally justified in his crimes.

Minghella's adaptation manages to be both less progressive and less nuanced than the 1955 book, despite being made almost half a century later. It is also less true to the essence of the book than the French 1960 adaptation, Plein Soleil, despite that film being beholden to the standards and censorship of the mid-20th century. Minghella's film is, I think, a great demonstration of why the American audience on the whole never 'got' Highsmith. She was always far more popular in Europe and I do believe that is because your standard American audience couldn't handle the moral ambiguity of her books.

There's a lot you can read into with TTMR but, to me, the book has always primarily been about class, not sexuality. It has more in common with a film like Parasite than Brokeback Mountain or Maurice. Tom is the American Dream taken to its perverse extreme—a ruthless, ambitious, dishonest character who will do anything to get ahead in a world stacked against him. The class element is near completely erased from the Minghella film, with the focus instead on Dickie as some sort of manic pixie dream girl who Tom stumbles into the thrall of and becomes infatuated and obsessed with to the point of snapping and killing him when he rejects Tom's feelings. Yes, Minghella managed to play into every homophobic stereotype out there by depicting Tom as an explicitly homosexual character and... a violent incel who can't take a hint.

In contrast, book Dickie is stunningly mediocre to the point of being an embarrassment to Tom, far from Jude Law's character. If anything, Tom is the one who brings excitement into Dickie's life . Minghella's Ripley is a shy, ungainly nerd; Highsmith's Ripley has his clumsy moments—certainly never managed to win Marge over lol—but is a capable, charismatic and driven person in his own right.

E Shannon's paper 'Where was the sex?' does a better job of discussing the altered interpretation of Ripley than I can. I've linked SciHub as it's locked behind institution login on JSTOR.

Highsmith certainly explores sexuality with great sophistication, but ultimately sexuality remains subtext in the novel, while it dominates the film. To pursue its concerns, Minghella's film revises the novel's characters and invents others, all with the aim of redefining Tom Ripley for a Hollywood audience. Minghella's Tom is first and foremost a gay man besieged by a hostile, straight world and only secondarily an American social climber on the hunt in Europe. Ironically, Minghella's focus on Tom's "taboo" homosexuality leads to a story that is less-not more-subversive than Highsmith's, whose critique of American ideas of class is lost to the film's paradoxically conventional sexual conflicts. In fact, in one sense, the film altogether inverts the sexual context of the novel. Where the novel uses Tom's sexuality to critique contemporary ideas of class, the film uses Tom's class to critique contemporary ideas of sexuality. Highsmith's Tom Ripley is a diabolical "culmination of the American success ethic" (Cochran 162), while Minghella's Tom Ripley is a misunderstood casualty of sexual bigotry and provincialism and a victim of his own frustrated sexual desire.

And also:

Minghella's audience is encouraged to criticize the monolithic presence of the "straight culture" and sympathize with Tom's dilemma, while Highsmith's readers are asked to consider aspects of culture beyond gay or straight sexual identity. For Minghella, Tom is either gay or straight. Either Dickie loves Tom or he loves Marge. The complex, sometimes asexual relationships of the 1950s novel are replaced with the simpler, blunter sexual truths of 1990s Hollywood, where "homosexual" is becoming almost as normalized as "heterosexual."

They also make a good point about Dickie being arguably closer implied to being a closeted gay man than Tom, which is actually quite a depressing thought. You can understand why he chooses estrangement from his family with that interpretation. Also, his assertion that Tom is in love with Dickie's material possessions, rather than him as a person is something I agree with. Tom doesn't miss Dickie after he dies, because he views Dickie as the sum of his parts—those being his signet ring, his fancy watches, his shiny cufflinks and his nice shoes. Again, deranged <3

Ultimately, I don't believe that even the shadow of a character like Ripley can be adapted to the screen. Dostoevsky being a major influence of Highsmith's is no surprise. Tom reads a lot like one of his rambling, neurotic characters, his inner dialogue being his most critical, defining feature, and not one that can be brought to the screen. Still, Minghella doesn't even try lol. I hate it.

#minghella - ie. 1999's puriteen #“how can i make a film about a guy who doesn't feel bad abt committing murder?? :(((” #- man who signed on to make film about a guy who doesn't feel bad abt committing murder #asks #anon #the talented mr ripley #long post #sorry but if we're talking sexuality... tom ripley is asexual #i could elaborate on that but feel like im getting off-topic lol